The New York Post: A CLEAR DIFFERENCE
October 1, 2004 --
Last night's presidential debate succeeded in a way that similar match ups in previous campaigns have too often failed — in making clear some stark differences between the candidates.
The contrasts between them on several key issues came through.
On Iraq, Bush clearly grasped — where Kerry did not — both the relationship of Iraq to the War on Terror and the futility of relying on U.N. disapprobation to disarm Saddam Hussein.
Even though Kerry admitted that Saddam was a threat to the world and that disarming him was the right thing to do, he considers the U.S.-led effort to do so a "diversion from the War on Terror."
But Bush rightfully noted, the battle against terrorism is a global effort.
As it was, America immediately went into Afghanistan and toppled the pro-Osama Taliban government; since then, 75 percent of al Qaeda's top leadership is either behind bars or in the ground.
But Bush was correct when he noted that "to say there's only one focus of the War on Terror doesn't really understand the nature of the War on Terror."
Kerry — having declared that Saddam was a threat to U.S. security and having voted to use force — now says, "We could have continued those inspections. We had Saddam trapped."
But Bush reminded Kerry that "Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming. Why should he? He had 16 other resolutions and nothing took place. The facts are that he was systematically deceiving the inspectors."
To suggest otherwise, said the president, is a "September 10th mentality, the hope that somehow resolutions and failed inspections would make this world a more peaceful place."
The fact is, America had plenty of allies on Sept. 10, 2001. The same wasn't true two days later, when the United States set out to bring terrorism to its knees. Sept. 11 changed the landscape — and President Bush acted forcefully to alter that new strategic environment to America's advantage.
Hence the reduction of Saddam's Iraq, an enabler of terrorism and a continuing threat to regional — and world — peace.
Kerry doesn't seem to understand just how complicated the world can be.
He certainly doesn't get it regarding North Korea, calling last night for immediate bilateral talks.
The senator's preferred course in Korea would, as Bush noted, shatter the six-party multinational talks that have been set up — a regional approach that gives the nations directly threatened by Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions a stake in solving the problem.
Nations frozen out of that process — like Japan and South Korea, which depend on U.S. leadership — would surely do whatever they feel necessary to secure their defense.
A nuclear Japan would be a distinct possibility — if not a likelihood — and that would further destabilize an already volatile region.
Ditto a nuclear South Korea.
That would make the world safer?
Ultimately, the most important message of this first debate was John Kerry's assertion that he and the president "have a different set of convictions on how we make America safe."
Indeed, they do. |
